Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Obama Can Learn From FDR

I was recently reading the biography, "The Three Roosevelts" by James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn - when I was almost knocked senseless by the following paragraph which appeared at the top of page 310:

"[N]ot only had the president [Franklin Roosevelt] attacked the motives of the financial and industrial elite, assailing 'a decade of debauch, of group selfishness,' he had also battered the foundations of their self esteem. Following in the footsteps of [Theodore Roosevelt], FDR had exploded one of the most popular and deeply entrenched myths in America, he had dissociated the concept of wealth from the concept of virtue. Not only did he refuse to portray business leaders as virtuous men, he compared them to the fascist menace abroad. While countries dominated by 'aristocracy and aggression' threatened the United states from without, he charged that the nation was threatened by its own 'resplendent economic autocracy' from within - economic autocrats who wanted nothing but 'power for themselves, enslavement for the public.'"

Therein lies the tragedy of Barack Obama. He has tried to maintain the appearance of being "above it all". He has tried to be too much of an amiable gentleman - when he should have been fighting these plutocratic thugs with all the rhetorical thunder he could muster. The lesson that the thirty-second president learned over seventy-five years ago seems to have been lost on the forty-fourth. Pity.

Late in campaign of 2008, Senator Obama's handlers made much of the fact that he was in the process of reading "Team of Rivals", the biography of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin that was published around that period. He was reading the right author but the wrong book. The book he should have been reading was her bio of President and Mrs. Roosevelt, "No Ordinary Time". Let's just hope that he is able to spare the time to read her upcoming book on Franklin's distant cousin Theodore.

Is the president serious when he tells us that he plans on "working with" the opposition party in the next two years? Part of me has to believe that he's not, that he's merely taking on the guise of the good loser, holding his cards close to his vest. The last thing in the world he wants to do at this stage in the game is to even think about "working with" these reactionary assholes. As history tells us, that's impossible. He must realize this by now. Or does he? If he doesn't he is about to make the same fatal mistake made by Bill Clinton in 1994.

When the Republicans took back the House that year for the first time since the 1950s, Clinton naively decided that if he couldn't beat the hideous bastards, he would join them, so to speak. In the process he moved the Democratic party far enough to the right that by the early spring of 1998, "the party if Franklin Delano Roosevelt" was virtually unrecognizable. That was the year I bolted the Dems forever and never looked back. If Clinton was expecting a fair shake from the GOP for his appeasement he was tragically mistaken. Later on that same year they impeached him for lying about a fling with a half-witted intern. Wasn't that a time? Isn't this as well?

Should Obama expect the same type of treatment from the one-hundred and twelfth congress? The answer to that question is, quite simply: DUH!!! As they did twelve years ago, they plan on bringing the executive branch of our government to a screeching halt. These people are morally bankrupt and they are decades past the time when they could rely on the quaint concept of "reasoned discoursed". All they have going for them at this point in their weird and twisted history is their ability to obfuscate and their power to obstruct. The following two years will see the persecution of Barack Obama. The wheels are already in motion.

MESSAGE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

Dear President Obama;

First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read my blog. I am truly and indescribably humbled. [Hey, I can dream, can't I? Cut me some slack!] Mr. President, now is not the time for humility. Now is the time to fight. As weird as the opposition was during the last congressional session, they're only going to be worse in the next. Remember that there are a lot more of them now. For you to even attempt to find common cause with these jackasses is beyond naive - it is politically suicidal. Given what happened to Bill Clinton, and taking into consideration their disgusting behavior during the first two years of your administration, by now it should be obvious to you that they want to destroy you. And they will destroy you - if you allow them to. Hell, most of these nitwits refuse to concede that you were born in the United States! They're not rational people, Mr. President. You cannot - you will not - be able to "meet them half way". Don't be an idiot.

There. I said it. Forgive my harsh tone, Mr. President, but it needed to be said. Give Sasha and Malia and hug for me, will you? And send my love to Michelle. I've got a wicked crush on that gal. Seriously!

Here are some instructive quotations:

"I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it, the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it, these forces met their master."

"Those newspapers of the nation which most loudly cried "dictatorship" against me would have been the first to justify the beginnings of a dictatorship by somebody else."

"Whoever seeks to set one religion against the other seeks to destroy all religion."

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate of me- and I welcome their hatred."

As the title of this little ditty of mine suggests, the forty-fourth president of the United States could learn a hell-of-a-lot from the actions of the thirty-second. As I write these words, a discussion is taking place on the Morning Joe program. Mike Barnacle has just wondered aloud whether or not Obama has Clinton's ability to "sit down with the Republicans." Mike!!! You'recompletelymissing the point! What good did Clinton's "sitting down" with the GOP do us in the long run? What are the positive results all these years later? NAFTA? Have another sip. Sixty-five years after his death, we still benefit from FDR's New Deal - or what's left of it. What are the present-day benefits of Bubbah's so-called "New Covenant"? On second thought, don't ask, don't tell.

Let's give Bill Clinton credit. He was in many ways an able and intelligent chief executive. But ultimately he was a bitter disappointment because of his tendency to cave in to the right wing. We can only hope that Barack Obama doesn't make the same mistake.

There are a lot of good reasons why Franklin D. Roosevelt is usually rated by historians as one of the three greatest presidents in the history of this country. One of those reasons is because the guy loved a good fight - and never shied away from one. He never tried to appear "above it all". He loved to say, "We must take action. NOW!" And he took action, Buster - you'd better believe it. That is why most people hold him in such high regard today. FDR was a fighter.

Are you listening, Mr. President?

Tom DeganGoshen, NYtomdegan@frontiernet.net

SUGGESTED READING:

The Three Rooseveltsby James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn

If it is not available at your local, independently owned bookstore (go there first), you can probably pick it up on Amazon.com. It's a page-turner.

********************

For more recent postings on this cesspool of left wing propaganda, please go to the link below:

Congratulations! You have your own troll! HIgh praise indeed if your enemies are monitoring your Rants.

"Culture of dependency"? Yeah, it is terrible when people get addicted to things like eating, having a roof over their heads, medicine when they get sick, that sort of thing. Need to cure them lazy n... Oops, almost said the n-word.

FDR's New Deal was responsible for 40 years of growth of the US middle class. If that is a "Ponzi Scheme", sign me up.

On all of the "talking head" shows, I keep hearing that Obama is declaring class warfare. I WISH! I think we are way past due for a good fight with the plutocracy and their million dollar "bonuses" (more like thievery!). Do you think FDR was comfortable taking on the plutocrats because he came from a wealthy family? I am curious whether anyone here thinks that Obama shies away from this fight due to his working class roots? Seems like that would make him more of fighter for us working stiffs.

My company (a billion dollar corp) has given teeny tiny salary increases for the past 3 yrs and each employee is now doing 2 or 3 people's jobs - all in the name of their precious bottom line and stockholders. They know we can't leave because there are no other jobs to flee to.

The plutocracy (both on the right and left) have us right where they want us- broke, scared and defenseless - and we re-elect the jackasses who got us here in the first place. If Obama does not stand up to them on our behalf, why should I vote for him in the next election? We need a defender, not an appeaser. Just call me

I was just telling this to my brother and a friend the other day. And, I spent some of the weekend listening to the speech FDR gave in 1936:

FDR Speech at Madison Square Garden (October 31, 1936)

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

Interesting how some want to redistribute the wealth of the rich to themselves. But, when it comes to their jobs being shipped overseas to people who are far worse off and will work for much less – all of a sudden redistribution of wealth (to others) doesn’t seem so keen.

“If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month.” Theodore Roosevelt

I suppose I need to postscript by saying I do indeed understand that the bulk of Tom’s rant referenced FDR - not TR. But, he has in the past, shown a liking for TR as well – thus my TR quote. Now, imagine ANY president say THAT today. TR wouldn’t make it 5 seconds in the modern Democratic party.

Tommy: I cam on about 2 weeks, maybe even a week ago and though I didn't curse or being bad, perhaps I was not the politest. You've got a cool stream of thought and blog even if I don't agree with you.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Hi Tom, I've enjoyed reading your stuff. A friend said something the other night during dinner that clicked for me: "Obama reflects the kind of personality which the vast majority of black people have been forced to develop. Attitudes of compromise and "Can't we all just get along?" It's a natural by-product of being forced to grow up and to live in a racist culture." Disarm your enemy with a smile and defuse violence by giving in and welcoming the opposition. This is especially true when you have to sidestep bullies who resent not only your skin color and ethnicity, but your obviously superior intelligence.

Tom, you have trolls plural, to many to count, but you have to love their insipid comments like sad ass biker and his silly quote The TVA is still functioning what about REA, CCC, WPA, etc these programs were real their results staggering. I just love FDR haters what dumb bastards, I lived half my life with the shadow of the New Deal over my head looks like my other half will be with the anvil of Conservatism bearing down on my skull Wow not a pretty picture keep up the Rants never give these bastards any quarter you know the drill if only Obama....

"And as officials frenetically tried to paper over differences among the Group of 20 members with a vaguely worded communique to be issued today, there was no way to avoid discussion of the fundamental differences of economic strategy. After five largely harmonious meetings in the past two years to deal with the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, major disputes broke out between Washington and China, Britain, Germany and Brazil.

Each rejected core elements of Obama's strategy of stimulating growth before focusing on deficit reduction. Several major nations continued to accuse the Federal Reserve of deliberately devaluing the dollar last week in an effort to put the costs of America's competitive troubles on trading partners, rather than taking politically tough measures to rein in spending at home."

Once again, spending by the Central Planners has failed and left a big debt to our children and grand children. Social Security is a ponzi scheme and is bankrupt just like the Post Office, Amtrak, Medicare etc.

"The long-run financial condition of Medicare and Social Security is analyzed annually in the Medicare and Social Security Trustees’ Reports. Spending on Medicare is projected to rise from its pre-recession level of 3.2 percent of GDP to 6.4 percent in 2030 and 8.7 percent in 2050. Spending on OASDI is projected to rise from 4.4. percent in 2008 to 6.1 percent in 2030, before retreating to 5.8 percent in 2050.8 Given that revenues for these programs are not projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, it is apparent that these programs are on a fiscally unsustainable path. "

Oh, I'm going to watch "Sarah Palin's Alaska" alright. I wouldn't miss that one for the world, bolkok!

An interesting and thoughtful (and FUNNY) opinion piece appeared in this morning's Boston Globe by a person named Joanna Weiss. As good as it was, I had to take issue with the first sentence:

"The word on Sarah Palin, in wishful-thinking circles, is that she’s given up her political future to be a media star."

When you wish upon a starYour dreams come true....

I am wishing like Jiminy Cricket on a star that Sarah Palin's political career is in full throttle. The very idea that the GOP would nominate Fascist Barbie as their 2012 candidate could be a dream come true. It would only spell electoral doom for "the party of Lincoln" - and the people who tend to vote in the first Republican primaries of the season tend to have the collective IQ of a half-eaten box of Milk Duds (South Carolina for instance). She could make a good showing early on to give her enough momentum to crash victorious into the convention in the late summer.

Oh! What a treat that would be!

To paraphrase the late, great Milly Ivins in a slightly different context:

"If that woman's IQ slips any lower we're gonna have to start watering her twice a day."

She won't run. She has it better where she is (more money, more able to avoid criticism, and far, far less to do). Presidents actually have to do stuff. Presidentry is hard. Punditry is easy. Plan on the GOP bringing its A game (and the Dems got lucky last time. They had the charismatic blank canvas of Obama, rather than the well-meaning mush of a Kerry). Instead of the sweaty desperation of McCain plus the appeals-to-douches of Palin they'll bring Huckabee (or someone like him), which is a more realistic threat. Prepare for one like that. A guy with political experience who is conservative enough to court the Mods, with enough dogwhistles to keep the social conservatives (who, lets be honest, will vote for a dog-chewed sneaker before they'll either vote for a D or risk losing by staying home), balanced with a disarming "Aw, shucks" manner to avoid scaring away the Undecideds.Besides, by that point all the person running will have to do is, with matches behind his back, point at the nation burning and say "Aw, shucks. Look what the Democrat Party did!"

Here's the difference between the GOP's "Fascist Barbie*" and the Dem's Socialist Ken:

We won't nominate the Barbie to be President like you did with the hapless Barack. Therefore, all the fun you envision with SP will continue to be reserved to we who are chuckling at the ineptitude of the Administration That Made Jimmy Carter Look Semi-Competent.

________________-

*(what could be more fascist than the Obama Administration giving Papal Dispensations to a bunch of Giant Corporations and Big Unions so they can escape the horror of Obamacare's first year while millions of small businesses are left facing it with no recourse? When will you guys learn basic economics, and better yet, the true definition of socialist fascism?)

Now, in answer to your question: In my mind this is an obvious and blatant violation of these citizens' civil liberties, whether a Democrat or Republican government sits in power. I salute Mr. Edge, and the others in the link I provided, for standing up to TSA's gestapo tactics.

My honest gut reaction to this is that these procedures are passive agressive behavior against main stream americans and needless abuse of those who dont have a high risk profile so as not to inflame the high risk populations.

Why doesn El Al do this, they profile. Thats why?

Secondly, what is the ratio of muslim to non muslim antics in the air. Outside of a playboy model that tried to jump out a plane at 35000 feet, i am not aware of any other group causing such problems.

If we profile, let's say, the muslims they can decide: terrorism is worth the trouble or its not. They can manage their own culture.

I feel it's a mute point, anyway. TSA's "heavy-handed" tactics aren't designed to foil would-be terrorist acts in the sky. These (tactics) are all tied into the ever-increasing and growing corporatocracy that's taking over our republic. It's related to all the "stuff" I write about on my own blog. Just like with 9/11, it's our corporate-owned government's way of instilling fear and acquiescence, so as to get their methods accepted and their legislation and executive orders pushed through with little or no resistance.

While I understand skepticism of corporations, given how much they pay in taxes, salaries and US capital formation in the us, I find your dislike a bit extreme. They pay all the bills. People focus on top managment salaries as an excuse to hate them. People get paid at the top because capable individuals are few. Think for a moment what it takes to manage Exxon worldwide operations and to be acceptable to worldwide equity and debt portfolio managers and various other externalities.

Anywho, if you dislike the TSA I think we can find common ground on the government corporate bueracracy. These government agencies are nothing but jobs programs. I had done some work years ago in California and had the opportunity to spend a day at the office of a federal agency based in Sacramento. To this day, that day stands out. On the floor I visited, there were about 60+ people in cubes. These "workers" spent their day talking, reading papers, walking around, getting coffee, and doing anything but work. You could have fired 90% and then fired another 90% and they still would have been overstaffed.

TSA more of the same. Take your tax dollars, handle your genitalia, and let terrorist board in Yemen and switch planes in Europe.

If people are into jobs programs, fine, use your vote that way. I view these govt agencies as 1st degree robbery of taxpayers $ regardless of tax bracket and their freedoms.

JakeGint"Here's the difference between the GOP's 'Fascist Barbie*' and the Dem's Socialist Ken:"You don't know what "socialist" means. Stop using the word until you do. In the mean time, go for a drive on your public roads.

"We won't nominate the Barbie to be President like you did with the hapless Barack."Sure. You just put her one heart attack away from the Big Chair.

"Therefore, all the fun you envision with SP will continue to be reserved to we who are chuckling at the ineptitude of the Administration That Made Jimmy Carter Look Semi-Competent."Obama's not inept. He's just not what liberals thought he was (nor, for that matter, is he what the Right paints him as. He's not a commiepinko. He's a Mod). By my standard, he's done pretty well (my standard being "not McCain").Also, Carter only faced continued malaise. Obama faced a bank meltdown, a mortgage meltdown and a market meltdown (note: none of the three are solved. Nor will they be), two simultaneous wars, a bunch of maybe-Jihadis that we can't send to trial and also can't send home, the biggest oil spill in American history, all with a partisan media that started spinning him as a commie/muslim/etc even before he took office (to the point that the first Teabagger uprising took place less than a week after he moved in), a "liberal" media that likes conflict more than it likes resolution, an opposition party that would rather watch the nation burn than govern, and a Democratic party that couldn't find its spine if it gave itself a back rub.

"*(what could be more fascist than the Obama Administration giving Papal Dispensations to a bunch of Giant Corporations and Big Unions so they can escape the horror of Obamacare's first year while millions of small businesses are left facing it with no recourse? When will you guys learn basic economics, and better yet, the true definition of socialist fascism?)"I like how you assume the GOP would be any better (if history is any guide, wherever the Dems are mediocre, the GOP is worse). Also, for kicks, {citation needed}. (Note, too, that most of the tax cuts in the Stimulus, if memory serves, were targeted to the small end of business)Note that "Obamacare", simply, isn't. Learning (somewhat) from the lessons of the Clinton administration, he set the tone, but let the Legislative do their damn jobs. Also, the rest of the world thinks your country is out of its mind. No "Single Payer"? Not even "Public Option"? C'mon, America, how long are you going to let unnecessary middlemen skim off the top of your healthcare dollars?

boltok"My honest gut reaction to this is that these procedures are passive agressive behavior against main stream americans and needless abuse of those who dont have a high risk profile so as not to inflame the high risk populations."Actually, it's more that they only know how to defend against the previous tactic, and are desperate to appear to be doing something, resulting in Security Theater (where the ports continue to be wide open, but you get a ballrub when you fly).It's easy to advocate further marginalizing an Unpopular Minority when you aren't one of them.

"Why doesnt Homeland Security line our southern boarder with these?"Because they don't work in the Rio Grande. Because desperation beats technology every time. Because businesses get bigger margins by using illegals. Because law enforcement gets a bigger budget by scapegoating them. Because you get cheaper fruit.

"Think for a moment what it takes to manage Exxon worldwide operations and to be acceptable to worldwide equity and debt portfolio managers and various other externalities."Corporations are externalizing machines. Negative externalizing machines. If the fine for polluting is $10 (if they get caught, and lose, and lose all the appeals) but they save $15 by flushing it, they flush it. Exxon, for example, signed an agreement that they'd only send double-hulled tankers up Prince William Sound. Once the ink was dry, they didn't, because double-hulled and double-bottomed boats are less profitable, and what are the chances of a boat Captain getting drunk, anyway? Then the Captain of the Valdez got drunk.

I try to add to the conversation. If you are just here to snipe, Boltok, our time would be better spent with you elsewhere."Word salad", which is a term you seem to enjoy tossing, is not a valid objection. I'm not Palin, nor am I Beck. I am, in the very least, somewhat coherent. In High School, in fact, I was voted Most Likely to be Somewhat Coherent (note: In fact, not)."TL:DR", another term you throw, is not a valid rebuttal. If you can't focus long enough to make your way through a mere 260ish words, that's your problem, not mine. Stop being a douche.

The problem with socialists is how they think. They believe in social justice and economic justice by legislated equality of outcome. Besides being unconstitutional this goes against human nature. Human beings are competitive by nature and achieve more by being competitive.

The Founding Fathers were very wise when they wrote the Constitution and designed it for equality of opportunity. Every time the socialists get power they create legislation that is contrary to the Constitution until they anger the electorate and remind it why it doesn't like socialists to be in power. This is why the democratic socialists should never be allowed to have power, they always pervert it into primacy of the state over the rights and liberties of the individual.

ModusOperandi, show me some new html tricks. That is your only talent.

Obama is a political whore who took massive campaign contributions from the big corporations and is in bed with them.

Remember the words of our brother Mario Savio:

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"